Message Received and Understood!!!

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress has already
proven to have been an outstanding success. Congress and the American people got to hear some facts
and a warning from the leader of the country most impacted by the consequences of a bad deal with
Iran over that country’s ongoing pursuit of nuclear weapons. “Members of both political parties could
be seen nodding in agreement with Netanyahu during his 40-minute speech.” (Ref.
1) After Netanyahu’s speech, the failure of the Obama administration to
insist upon a strong and verifiable agreement that would halt Iran’s nuclear weapons development
program would be highly embarrassing to the President and his supporters. It would likely give rise
to a serious Republican-led revolt in Congress against such an agreement.

Although he won’t admit it, President Obama has now been forced to back away
from a “peace for our time” type of nuclear arms agreement. Instead of a deal “at any price”, the
President has now announced that the U.S. would not support an agreement that threatened U.S. security.
Previously, it appeared that the U.S. position was “a bad deal is better than no deal.” Following
Netanyahu’s speech, the threat of losing the support of the American people and Congress to an agreement
that would not curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions has convinced the President to change course and now adopt
the Israeli Prime Minister’s position that “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

This is a far cry from the President’s initial petulant response to Netanyahu’s
daring to publically state opposition to the administration’s headlong rush to reach an agreement with
Iran – any agreement, good or bad. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz was one of several who took
issue with the President’s ill-advised comments regarding Netanyahu’s speech.

“President Barack Obama ‘totally misled the American people’ by saying Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu . . . presented no new ideas about striking a deal with Iran over
nuclear weapons, . . . Dershowitz said . . .
"’The prime minister said, 'If the world leaders are not prepared to insist
that Iran changes behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least, they should insist Iran changes
behavior before a deal expires,'" said Dershowitz.
"’His proposal, and it's a very sound one, is that the sunset provision doesn't
kick in unless Iran does three things — it {Iran} has to stop being the world's greatest exporter
of terrorism, it has to stop bullying neighboring countries like Syria and Lebanon, and it has to stop
calling for the destruction of Israel.’ [Emphasis mine] - - -
“Netanyahu's call to require that any deal with Iran — a country with
a history of ‘cheating, cheating, cheating’ — not terminate unless Iran changes its conduct is both wise
and rational, [Emphasis mine] according to Dershowitz.
"’What would be wrong with requiring the Iranians to give up terrorism,
give up attacking Israel, give up interfering with other nations before the deal is allowed to lapse?’
[Emphasis mine] he asked. - - -
"’This is one issue where the Palestinians and the Israelis have the same stake,’
he said. ‘An atomic bomb from Iran won't distinguish between Arab and Jew, it will destroy everything.
Other Arab countries are in support of the Israeli position and against the American position.
"’This is one issue in which the Arabs and the Jews are jointly committed against
an Iranian, Muslim radical regime that would not only destroy the Jews and the Palestinians of Israel, but
would also destroy Jordan and other neighboring countries.’” (Ref.
1)

Swallowing his initial words and less than a week after Netanyahu spoke, “President
Obama reassured critics of nuclear talks with Iran that he will not support an agreement that threatens U.S.
security, saying, ‘If there's no deal, then we walk away.’ - - -
"{He went onto say that} ’If we cannot verify that they are not going to obtain
a nuclear weapon, that there's a breakout period so that even if they cheated we would be able to have enough
time to take action. If we don't have that kind of deal, then we're not going to take it’ . . . - - -
"’Over the next month or so, we're going to be able to determine whether or not
their system is able to accept what would be an extraordinarily reasonable deal, if in fact, as they say,
they are only interested in peaceful nuclear programs. And if we have unprecedented transparency in that
system, if we are able to verify that in fact they are not developing weapons systems, then there's a deal
to be had, but that's going to require them to accept the kind of verification and constraints on
their program that so far, at least, they have not been willing to say yes to,’ [Emphasis mine]
Mr. Obama said.
“He acknowledged that the talks have taken on ‘urgency’ because they have been going
on for well over a year. . . . - - -
“. . . others, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, aren't convinced
that the administration is getting enough {out of the proposed agreement}.
"’I do not trust inspections with totalitarian regimes,’ [Emphasis mine]
Netanyahu said . . . ‘What I'm suggesting is that you contract Iran's nuclear program, so there's less to
inspect.’
As an example, he cited North Korea and previous Iranian regimes who he
says have ‘cheated and bamboozled inspectors.’ [Emphasis mine] - - -
{Most Republicans and some Democrats joined in the call for a tough, and binding
agreement with Iran, accompanied by the requirement to unequivocally verify full compliance with the terms
of the agreement.}
{Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky said} "The Iranians are fomenting
trouble in Syria, in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Yemen. All over the Middle East, they're on the march. They've had
enhanced influence in Iraq. We can't ignore all of their other behavior in looking at the potential nuclear
deal . . . What we do know about the deal is it looks like it will leave the infrastructure in place with one
of the worst regimes in the world.’ . . . - - -
“. . . ‘I'm glad the prime minister came. We needed to hear from somebody to point
out the problems with the deal that we anticipate will be made and also to point out that you shouldn't ignore
all of Iran's other behavior unrelated to their nuclear program," {Senator McConnell} said.” (Ref. 2)

In addition to emphasizing the consequences of a bad deal on Iran’s nuclear ambitions,
Netanyahu pointed out the broader issues involved. “What Benjamin Netanyahu did when he addressed Congress
this week is that he challenged Barack Obama to stop ignoring Iranian regional ambitions and excluding them
from the imminent deal with Iran. He challenged him to tell the US public about the true meaning of Iranian
incursions in four Arab countries and Iranian domination over Arab capitals, including some that are on the
border with Israel, instead of neglecting this important strategic issue in the future of the Middle East.
He also challenged him over the nuclear dimension of the deal, which he said only ‘postpones’ Iranian
acquisition of nuclear weapons by a few years while giving Iran access to funds that are necessary to develop
such weapons.
“Benjamin Netanyahu's challenge ired Barack Obama. Netanyahu's strategy was bold in
the view of some, and audacious in the view of others, as he sought to expose the US president before Congress
and the American public. What no others, Arabs or Americans, dared do, Netanyahu daringly undertook, risking
his political future on the eve of Israeli elections. Netanyahu dared to evoke Iranian regional ambitions in
the context of American-Iranian nuclear talks, even as Obama sought to separate the two issues completely,
ignoring the appeals by friendly and allied Arab countries to do otherwise.” (Ref.
3)

As evidence that the Netanyahu congressional speech did have an impact, polls
conducted immediately afterward showed the following.

“A Fox News telephone-based poll of 1,011 registered voters conducted after the
Israeli leader’s visit shows that 65 percent now approve the use of force to stop Iran from developing
nuclear weapons.
“Not surprisingly, poll results showed some major divisions between Republicans
and Democrats. While 70 percent of Republicans saw a nuclear Iran as disastrous, 51 percent of Democrats
saw the same situation as manageable.
“Nevertheless, the use of force to stop Iran’s nuclear aspirations was favored by
a majority of Republicans (81%), Democrats (54%) and independents (53%).
“The agreement Obama hopes to reach with Iran would not stop that country from
acquiring nuclear weapons but just delay the possibility by ten years. Poll results indicate that 84 percent
of Americans, including 80 percent of Democrats, think this would be a poor deal.
“Overall, the poll shows that the Obama administration is once again following a
course of action contrary to the wishes of most Americans. (Ref.
4)

A part of the message being delivered by Prime Minister Netanyahu was that Israel
would not allow itself to be sacrificed in the vain hope that feeding Israel to the Islamic wolves would
appease their appetite for genocide and world conquest. Alluding to Europe’s sacrificing of Czechoslovakia to
Nazi Germany in the Munich Agreement of 1938, Netanyahu said, “’I can only urge the
leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Not to sacrifice the future for the present;
not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.’ [Emphasis mine] He added:
‘But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal
enemies, those days are over.’ That pledge, which received a standing ovation, was {part of} the message
Netanyahu came to deliver.” (Ref. 5)

So, contrary to what President Obama said immediately following the Israeli Prime
Minister’s speech to the American people and its leaders, Netanyahu’s message was received,
understood, and is having a positive impact on the administration’s position in dealing with
Iran!